Apple's departure prompts questions of chamber representation

[AppleInsider]

Following the departure of Apple and other high-profile companies from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, some have begun to question whether the organization represents the interests of its members.

Traditionally aligned with the Republican Party, the chamber must now wield influence over a Democratic Washington, and its stance on climate change had led a handful of companies to resign from its ranks. In the wake of recent comments about global warming, some officials have questioned whether the chamber has "the pulse of their membership," according to BusinessWeek.

Much of the issue lies with President Thomas Donohue, whose "bulldog style" has rubbed some the wrong way. Donohue personally became involved when Apple abandoned the chamber earlier this month, writing a letter to the company accusing it of forfeiting the chance to "advance a 21st century approach to climate change."

"There aren't many who would willingly take on Apple icon Steve Jobs -- and lecture him on technology," the report said. "But Thomas J. Donohue, the combative head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, isn't one to step away from a fight."

As some in Washington see the chamber as less of an influence, the White House has relied more on the Business Roundtable, a consortium of over 160 CEOs on which it relies for feedback and input on issues. The group aims to be non-partisan, and has not taken a stance on a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.

But Donohue argued that the roundtable does not provide an opportunity for CEOs to be frank. Instead, they must be polite in order to be a part of the group. That's why, Donohue said, he's needed to play the "bad cop" and protect business interests.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu praised Apple for its departure from the chamber, calling the move "wonderful." Greenpeace, too, noted Apple's decision to leave the group.

Preceding Apple in departure were Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. Nike also withdrew from the chamber's board, but retained its membership.

The Mac maker has recently pushed to highlight its environmentally friendly approach, and began reporting carbon emissions of its hardware for the first time. Apple has said that its products themselves produce a great deal more emissions than its operations or manufacturing.

[digitalclips]

Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve. Now many more companies lead by centrist and clear headed folks should also take their leave of the COC.

[Quadra 610]

Interesting: Apple's interest (or lack thereof) defines the viability of political institutions.

Now THAT is power.

Then again, the Chamber is allied with the Republican party, so the possiblity that they're completely out of touch is all the more real.

[anantksundaram]

Donohue spent 13 years as chief lobbyist for the US trucking industry: http://www.uschamber.com/about/management/donohue.htm

Not much surprise there, re. his position on the environment and climate change.

[bigmc6000]

This is why Apple left "U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu praised Apple for its departure from the chamber, calling the move "wonderful." Greenpeace, too, noted Apple's decision to leave the group."

It's brilliant - they realize nothing is going to happen Washington as it relates to them and they are probably just wasting their time so they go ahead and make a big deal about not wanting to waste their time anymore and they get tons of free, good press.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Interesting: Apple's interest (or lack thereof) defines the viability of political institutions.

Now THAT is power.

Then again, the Chamber is allied with the Republican party, so the possiblity that they're completely out of touch is all the more real.

I can imagine in earlier times the Chamber would be sticking with 'the Earth is the flat and the center of the solar system' for sure.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve. Now many more companies lead by centrist and clear headed folks should also take their leave of the COC.

What about the CNN wing nuts and their gratutious amounts of pseudo-science? You realize it goes both ways right?

Many companies left before Apple so it's not like Apple is a trailblazer here (as noted in the article).

EDIT: Look like penchant for sensationalism has ratted you out - I won't even bother.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

This is why Apple left "U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu praised Apple for its departure from the chamber, calling the move "wonderful." Greenpeace, too, noted Apple's decision to leave the group."

It's brilliant - they realize nothing is going to happen Washington as it relates to them and they are probably just wasting their time so they go ahead and make a big deal about not wanting to waste their time anymore and they get tons of free, good press.

I disagree with this being a publicity move for Apple. SJ took a stand on principle to make a statement about the far right wind position of the COM. I resigned my company membership several years ago for the same reason.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

What about the CNN wing nuts and their gratutious amounts of pseudo-science? You realize it goes both ways right?

Many companies left before Apple so it's not like Apple is a trailblazer here (as noted in the article).

EDIT: Look like penchant for sensationalism has ratted you out - I won't even bother.

I don't get my scientific information from Fox or CNN, I got mine from university and years of teaching, reading and listening.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I disagree with this being a publicity move for Apple. SJ took a stand on principle to make a statement about the far right wind position of the COM. I resigned my company membership several years ago for the same reason.

Far right = "a 21st century approach to climate change."? Really? You must live in a really polar world - either far left or far right. By that approach anyone that thinks as you think must be far left and anyone who doesn't is far right. Well, ok, whatever floats your boat.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I don't get my scientific information from Fox or CNN, I got mine from university and years of teaching, reading and listening.

So what if I gave you data from University professor and scholars around the world? Would you dismiss it instantly if it didn't go with your hypothesis?

This isn't about Fox vs CNN - this is about hypothesis vs hypothesis (it's all a hypothesis by the way since it's all about projecting what will happen it can't be a fact to say x, y, or z is going to happen in 2050).

[Colt45]

Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.

Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.

Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.

[DESuserIGN]

Originally Posted by Colt45

Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.

Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.

Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.

I agree we should read Ayn Rand for enlightenment. We should read Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and a bunch of other works for enlightenment too.
That way we can be exposed to a whole array of mentally bankrupt, crackpot thought systems!

[X38]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve. Now many more companies lead by centrist and clear headed folks should also take their leave of the COC.

Guess you'd better add the BBC to your hate list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Interesting implicit perspective you have there - everyone who agrees with your hypothesis is using science and everyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is using pseudo science. Since you have been delegated the authority to declare what is science and what is pseudo science, I suppose that it your prerogative.

Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming.

The consequence is that we have to face the fact that the only meaningful direct measurements of temperature and temperature trends we have on a global scale have only come into existence in the age of modern weather & climate satellites over the past couple of decades or so. Since it is also well known that there are natural cyclical effects on global temperature of a similar time scale (such as the solar cycle and the Pacific ocean thermal cycle), it is simply impossible to determine at this time by direct measurement whether or not we are observing normal temperature fluctuations of a cyclical nature or a long term trend. At present global warming is only a conjecture that is supported by indirect and inconclusive evidence at best.

Of course I'm sure you're now going to tell me Im full of pseudo science and expose me for a heretic since I dared to question your dogma.

[hyperscribble]

...On Apple's part.

I was driving into Tampa thismorning for school, and as I was crossing over the Howard Frankland, I noticed a brown, thick steam of industrial exhaust streching across the clear sky from South Tampa (originating from a collection of stacks down near MacDill AFB) for 50 miles+ beyond my field of vision. It was extraordinary! I've never seen anything like it. It was disturbing that that entire stream was from one plant (an electricity plant, perhaps).

[Colt45]

Originally Posted by DESuserIGN

I agree we should read Ayn Rand for enlightenment. We should read Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and a bunch of other works for enlightenment too.
That way we can be exposed to a whole array of mentally bankrupt, crackpot thought systems!

They should all be read so one can determine the best course of action because the way we are heading today is a pending disaster. The market manipulations are robbing us all.

[LTMP]

Originally Posted by X38

Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming..

I wasn't aware of this, do you have any relevant links? I'm not trying to bash you, just curious as to the facts and methodology.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by hyperscribble

...On Apple's part.

I was driving into Tampa thismorning for school, and as I was crossing over the Howard Frankland, I noticed a brown, thick steam of industrial exhaust streching across the clear sky from South Tampa (originating from a collection of stacks down near MacDill AFB) for 50 miles+ beyond my field of vision. It was extraordinary! I've never seen anything like it. It was disturbing that that entire stream was from one plant (an electricity plant, perhaps).

Call me a skeptic but do you have a picture of said "brown, thick steam"? I only ask because I grew up in a town just 10 miles from not 1 but 2 coal burning power plants and I haven't seen brown steam in well over a decade as they have really put a stamp down on emissions. There is always steam coming from the plants but for at least the past decade it's been something that looks just like a white cloud.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by LTMP

I wasn't aware of this, do you have any relevant links? I'm not trying to bash you, just curious as to the facts and methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."

Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation

[cobia]

Originally Posted by hyperscribble

...On Apple's part.

I was driving into Tampa thismorning for school, and as I was crossing over the Howard Frankland, I noticed a brown, thick steam of industrial exhaust streching across the clear sky from South Tampa (originating from a collection of stacks down near MacDill AFB) for 50 miles+ beyond my field of vision. It was extraordinary! I've never seen anything like it. It was disturbing that that entire stream was from one plant (an electricity plant, perhaps).

I also made the same drive and the thing you observed was not industrial plant at a military base. Your second guess is closer. It was Big Bend Power Station near Apollo Beach. Macdill AFB is on the tip of the peninsula stretching into Tampa Bay. If you follow Westshore or Bayshore south you will come to Macdill AFB. Apollo Beach is reached by going out to brandon and heading south towards Bradenton. The plant is HUGE and has manatees sheltering in winter - they are pretty cool.

The Industrial Exhaust is left over from Burning coal. Mostly Water and CO2 and some nitrogen and Sulfur dioxide. Much reduced from how it was many years ago.

Today was the same exhaust as every day, it just looked like that due to the atmospheric pressure and temperature. The same reason their was fog this morning in many areas of Tampa Bay. that combined with the beautiful sunrise made for quite a dramatic sky.

I would not be mad, that plant probably enable both you and I to post these messages
At least be consoled that the plant is doing a lot to clean its emissions (based on the news articles over the past two or three years)

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

This isn't about Fox vs CNN - this is about hypothesis vs hypothesis (it's all a hypothesis by the way since it's all about projecting what will happen it can't be a fact to say x, y, or z is going to happen in 2050).

Well, leaving aside the intricacies of space-time as it relates to the "existence" of facts (for the sake of argument, we'll assume that a fact does not exist at previous times), it can still be true that x, y or z will happen in 2050. Now, which should we suppose to be more likely to be true: those things predicted by a theory that has a high degree of confirmation based on [models applied to] historical data (global warming), or those things predicted by the theories that have no general acceptance in the scientific community (global warming denial)?

Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same. Still, it's only a theory, or hypothesis, since it hasn't been tested on every living person, and it's possible some might survive. If you see a doctor who tells you that, based on his research, you'll be just fine after severing your aorta, who would you choose to believe? It's not yet a fact that you are dead, but if you sever your aorta, it's most likely true that you will be.

[justbobf]

Climate change is too important an issue to take chances. We must act to protect the planet, for our children's sake, whether you believe the scientists, or not, we cannot take the chance of inaction.

Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.

[Colt45]

Originally Posted by justbobf

Praise to Apple. Boo to the chamber, whose only interest in making money for corporations, no matter the cost to our planet.

The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, leaving aside the intricacies of space-time as it relates to the "existence" of facts (for the sake of argument, we'll assume that a fact does not exist at previous times), it can still be true that x, y or z will happen in 2050. Now, which should we suppose to be more likely to be true: those things predicted by a theory that has a high degree of confirmation based on [models applied to] historical data (global warming), or those things predicted by the theories that have no general acceptance in the scientific community (global warming denial)?

Put another way, past experience indicates that severing your aorta will result in a rather quick death, and most of the medical community will assure you of the same. Still, it's only a theory, or hypothesis, since it hasn't been tested on every living person, and it's possible some might survive. If you see a doctor who tells you that, based on his research, you'll be just fine after severing your aorta, who would you choose to believe? It's not yet a fact that you are dead, but if you sever your aorta, it's most likely true that you will be.

That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?

(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Edit: Here's the main point of it if you don't want to click
"There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas. The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotranspiration."

Pretty standard application of "no duh" science. Which is hotter? Grass or Asphalt? Is Asphalt hotter than grass after the sun has gone down? Just puts some numbers to the natural observation

Originally Posted by X38

...
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? ...

Check your dated assumptions at the link; the current state of the science is that the UHIE effect on the global temperature record is small to negligible. This is not something new or overlooked. It has been accounted and compensated for since 1938. All subsequent work has taken it into account. Debates over just how to compensate for it began seriously as early as 1967. After much debate the issue was pretty much settled, in terms of figuring out how to compensate for the urban effect and detecting a warming trend anyway, by 1990. More technical background information here.

Model developers adjust, weight, correlate against each other models continuously to adjust for model bias reduction. Current methods are discussed here.

[bokuwaomar]

Apple is super protective about its high margins, and is one of the most profitable companies in the US. If the US Chamber of Commerce is at odds with Apple over climate change, either the Chamber does not represent businesses like it says it does or Apple knows something that everyone else doesn't. While Steve Jobs is often seen as a super genius inventor god, I doubt that he's the only CEO in the US who has found a way for his company to be environmentally friendly and make record profits every year.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by LTMP

I wasn't aware of this, do you have any relevant links? I'm not trying to bash you, just curious as to the facts and methodology.

I wonder which cities are causing the unprecedented melting of the polar ice.

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?

(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)

Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by mstone

I wonder which cities are causing the unprecedented melting of the polar ice.

Whoops...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/1...not-shrinking/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...83-601,00.html

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

Your statement about "sensationalist claims" is untrue, your assertion about the data is incomplete and out-of-date. I suggest you freshen the current state of climate science, and therefore your assertions, here or here.

Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?

EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-EDF6D8150789
(there's probably a hundred or so links in the latter that point to questions about the global warming claims of Gore and Co.)

You have 100 or so for me?

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

That's a pretty flawed comparison as I'm talking about the environment and you're talking about the part of the body that keeps you alive but I'll go with it anyway. What if there was a rash of new research that shows that you can, in fact, survive through severing your aorta. Do you continue to believe what was previously believed or do you allow for science to do what it's meant to do and continue to research and refine?

(aka, there are tons of new studies that show that the fears of the late 90's were, at best, sensationalist claims and including the data from the past decade shows an arguably negligible amount of warming "expected" over the next 100 years using those same climate models. Again, it's a horrible, horrible comparison you use since our climate models are very much so in beta (if not alpha) simply because of the lack of data. Do you really expect to predict the next 100 years based off 20-30 years of decent data? If so I've got some land to sell you...)

Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.

I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?

[retiarius]

FYI: Steven Chu's editorial introducing the 25 Sept. issue of Science
themed on carbon capture and sequestration is reproduced here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=163040886856

(going to the original source at sciencemag.org itself requires registration).

Any business organization that does not see greentech as a win-win opportunity,
instead choosing to argue with a silverback-gorilla physics Nobelist (forget 'sjobs'
for the nonce) is simply out-of-their-league, enough to be "disintermediated".

[bokuwaomar]

Originally Posted by Colt45

The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.

If you want to talk about being sucked dry, let's talk about how gasoline was $0.80 a month before Septemeber 11th, 2001 and how its over $3 now, and peaked at over $4.50 last year.

Consumers really won't be affected cap and trade legislation. At worst, we'll have to pay slightly higher gasoline taxes (which are nothing compared to the price of oil anyway), and companies that deal with the cap and trade system badly will not be able to simply pass costs down the line since products are already priced just about as high the market will bear. At best, it's a net benefit to everyone. More jobs can be created as the country adjusts its sources of energy and less CO2 in the air means less CO2 in the sea, which benefits marine life and the fishing industry.

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by bigmc6000

Do you really want to go back and forth with links because I can go at it all day. You give me a link and I'll give you a link that says "meh, not so much." The simple fact that we can do this doesn't raise any flags to you at all? Really?

EDIT: If you do really want to do this I'll play, at least until I'm bored.
...

Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.

Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Joseph Romm has stated:

A contrarian is one who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom. Contrarians may have a good strategy for making money in the stock market, but how many have a hidden agenda to undermine faith in the stock market itself? Moreover, if the scientific consensus somehow reversed itself, the deniers wouldn't suddenly reverse themselves. They aren't contrarians.

All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto 'Take nobody's word.' Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; deniers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Deniers do. Deniers are not driven by a need to know the truth.

Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.

An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise – it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers – the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.

For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.

Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"

With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.

I have no doubt that industries and groups who feel threatened by controls on greenhouse emissions have hundreds of people (maybe more) with science credentials (distinguished from actual scientists) churning out "tons" of studies saying that it isn't a problem. Yet, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, most of whom do not stand to profit financially regardless of the conclusion arrived at, remains that the threat of global warming is indeed very real. (Clearly, they don't find your "studies" compelling.) So, why exactly should we believe you (and other science-deniers), as opposed to the consensus of the climatology community?

Science deniers? Umm, so, wait, let me get this straight. If I present a scientific finding that disputes yours *I'm* the denier? Umm, I'm actually 100% sure that goes against the fundamental prinicple of the scientific method. I don't deny any of the scientific foundings you can present but you categorically reject all of mine. You should check your other foot - I think that's the shoe you're looking for...

Also, as far as consensus is concerned... "Here's a quote from a Dec. 13 letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, by 100 top scientists, many of whom are themselves on the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change: ''In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.'' and here is a link to the scientists that signed said article: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004


Like I just said, if you wanna go link for link I'll do it but if you simply ignore the science of the other side because you think it's tainted how is that any less scientific than the findings of those who get their money from those who would benefit the most from climing significant global warming. I.E. Applying your argument just to the dissenters views is the most unscientific of all.

[CurtisEMayle]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Actually, it's a comparison very much to the point: to the point of showing that the way science-deniers like yourself toss around the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is based on a complete ignorance of the meaning of the words, and of science.
...

Precisely. Climate science too has more than one conclusive independent line of evidence for climate change (i.e., global warming).

Most members of the general public do not appreciate what scientists mean by the term “theory”. There is little in common between a theory like Oliver Stone’s theory of the Kennedy assassination in his film “JFK” and what a scientist calls a theory. Stone’s theory is supported by innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions which are often in many arguments erroneously called “facts”.

To a scientist a “fact” is not a “fact” until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the “fact” be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many “facts”.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.

Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Joseph Romm has stated:



Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.

An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise – it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers – the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.

For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.

Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"

With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.

You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.

I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle

To a scientist a “fact” is not a “fact” until is is demonstrated to be true. A fact is not merely an element of an argument for or against a particular issue. Only after an assertion is demonstrated to be true can the “fact” be used to build a logical chain of reasoning that elevates a hypothesis to a theory. Of course a theory in science relies on many “facts”.

well no duh - that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you and when I say it it's stupid but when you said it it's ok? Are you kidding me??? It has to be PROVEN to be a fact in the world of science - do you not see the clear hypocrisy of your argument? Really?? Man, I feel sad for you, I really do.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I got mine from university and years of teaching...

You sure you want to make that known?!

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Now we will hear all the usual Rush / Fox News comments and pseudo science from the wing nuts ... Meanwhile, well done Steve.

Well we heard from the usual "???", well the other side has no counterpart to Rush, but Heaven knows, they tried to "BUY" their way with that joke Air American radio to get them one! BUT, they do have the PMSNBC'ers and the Crazy Nightly Nuts from CNN that more than willingly spews the tripe of this administration and the ideas of the leftist loons!

Yeah that's right, Well Done Steve Jobs... You're so concerned about Global Warming, but yet, you haven't sold your polluting corporate jet? And fly commercial like the rest of us?! WHY STEVE, WHY????

You're so concerned about the ability to "advance a 21st century approach to climate change." and yet you don't manufacture your product here in the US where these laws coming from these Democratic A$$holes in Washington can ensure the American people that Apple is not adding to the carbon emissions problem, WHY STEVE, WHY????

Where are ALL your Apple products made STEVE??? What laws regarding the environment does the country that manufactures those products have, when it comes to the global warming concern??? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW STEVE???

Or, are you and Apple the typical hypocritical company that thinks thinner packaging and glass and aluminum casing absolves you from other polluting ways??? How much has Apple lobbied the Taiwanese government regarding their environmental policies???

*SILENCE FROM APPLE*

Yeah, that's what I thought!

How's all that change working out for ya?!